tv Today in Washington CSPAN December 10, 2009 6:00am-9:00am EST
>> new chairman of the nobel committee will now give his speech to the nobel laureate. >> your majesty's, mr. president, your royal highnesses, excellences, ladies and gentlemen, on the ninth of october this year, the nobel committee announced that the nobel peace prize of 2009 was to be awarded to president barack
obama. for the extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples dirk the committee has attached special importance to obama's mission and work for a world free from nuclear weapons. commencing on the award, president obama said it did not feel that he deserved to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this price, and whose courageous piece has inspired the world. but he added that he also knew that the nobel peace prize has not just been used to honor specific achievements, but also to give to just causes. the prize could thus represent a
call to action. president obama has understood the vision of the committee perfectly. we congratulate him with this year's nobel peace prize. [applause] this year's award must be where the great tension, numerous force, earned resolve conflict and many places of the world. and note this. there is the imminent danger of spread of nuclear weapons, degradation of the environment and global warming.
time magazine recently described this decade that is coming to an end as the worst since the second world war. from the very first moment for his presidency, president obama has been trying to create a cooperating climate which can reverse this trend. he has already lowered the temperature in the world, in the words of former peace prize admin to do. the committee always takes its frame as reference. we are to award the nobel peace prize to the person who, during the preceding year, meaning in this case, the previous award in december 2008.
shall have done the most or the best work between nations or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace progress. to quote. the question was actually quite simple, who has done most for peace in the world the past year? if the question is put in talbert nobel's terms, the answer is relatively easy to find. it had to be u.s. president barack obama. there is one person dominate international politics to the same extent as obama. or in such a short space of time. in this year so many has touched
major changes as obama has done. the question for the committee was rather, whether it would be bold enough to single out the most man in the world with responsibility and the obligations that come with the office of the president of the united states. the committee came to the conclusion that it must still be possible to award the nobel peace prize to political leaders. you cannot get the world on the same track without political leadership. and time is short. many have argued that the prize comes to early but history can tell a great deal about lost opportunities. it is now, today, we have the
opportunity to support president obama's ideas. this year's prize is indeed a call to action for all of us. the committee knows that many will weigh his ideas against what he really does. and that should be welcomed. but if the demand is either to fulfill your ideals to the letter, and that once, or to stop having ideals, we are left with the most damaging division between the limits of the day's realities and the mission for tomorrow. then politics becomes pure cynicism. political leaders must be able to think beyond the often narrow
confines of reality. only in this way, can we move the world in the right direction. obama has achieved a great deal. unilateral diplomacy has gained central position. with the emphasis on the role that the united nations and all the international institutions can play. former secretary-general of the united nations said that un was not created to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell. the united states is now paying its bills to the un. it is joining various committe committees, and exceeding important conventions. international standards are again respected. torture is forbidden. the president is doing what he
can to close guantánamo. human rights and international law are guiding principles. this is why this years laureate has earned the praise of leaders and international institutions, new opportunity has been created. your majesties, mr. president, your royal highnesses, ladies and gentlemen, the world free from nuclear weapons, and arms control negotiations, under obama's leadership, the united nations security council gave its unanimous support to the reason of the world without nuclear weapons. the new administration has reconsidered the deployment and
eastern europe or the planned antimissile defense, and is instead looking at other unilateral options to secure the region. this has contributed to an improved atmosphere in the negotiations of strategic nuclear weapons between the united states and the russian federation. a new agreement between them will, we hope, soon be on the table. we can see how the mission of a world without nuclear weapons is in purging, even the smaller nuclear powers to make. and we can certainly not prevent the spread of nuclear arms to new countries, unless we establish new republics meet their obligations. that was a clear premise underlying the nonproliferation treaty, and it is still today.
the important treaty is being held next year. either the nuclear powers will clearly single their willingness to disarm, or the conference may prove a fiasco. in danger of a new arms race. president obama has sent his signal. [applause] >> in today's washington, dialogue and negotiations are the preferred instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. the united states is no longer on the sidelines regarding to do
the problem in iran. as the president said in his inaugural address, we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. there is no guarantee that negotiations will succeed, but in obama's opinion, the united states is obliged to try. if the outstretched hand continues to meet, the global community will then stand more united in its further response. obama has insisted that the united have to build coalitions and make friends, rather than to create enemies. he is pursuing this strategy also in afghanistan. the struggle against violent extremism in afghanistan rests
with broad international foundation and is supported by many governments. around the world. in the long run, however, the problem in afghanistan can be solved only by the afghans themselves. this is a basic logic behind the president's new strategy there. regarding the fight against climate change, we can see the same underlying ideals. the united states cannot be indifferent to global challenges. while it cannot solve such challenges alone, obama has presented concrete proposals for both united states. this has improved chances of reaching an epic global agreement, if not here, then we hope at least next year.
china is steadily moving to the forefront of international politics and a global economy. there has been the sense in america that the challenges can only be met with close cooperation with the people's republic of china. for instance, no country has polluted more than united states. and no country will pollute more than china in the future. the economies of the two countries are closely intertwined. the rise of new great powers often leads to war and conflict. there are those in america who fear that history may repeat itself in that respect. the obama administration cooperation with beijing means that we have little reason to
use such a repetition. obama's diplomacy, as i understand, rests on the idea that whoever gets to lead the world must do so on the basis of ideas and attitudes that are shared by the maturity of the world population. that was how they put it. those earlier american presidents, who were all seen as world leaders, also outside the united states. franklin d. roosevelt, john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. america's ideals and the world's ideas. they lived in reagan's world's, not only in the heart and minds of our countrymen, but in the hearts and minds of millions of the world's people, in both free
and oppressed who look to us for leadership. obama's ideals for a large extent with the ideals that underpin the activities of the nobel committee throughout 108 year history. to strengthen international institutions as much as possible. to reduce the importance of arms and open a the nuclear armaments altogether. to promote dialogue and negotiation, and in the last few years, take protective measures to meet the climate threat. looking at the history of the nobel peace prize, we have several examples of awards to persons or institutions that
have achieved from the mental agreements or are the result that have stood the test of history. we will find at least as many efforts that have gone to those that tried to bring about from the changes in international politics, but the result was still unclear at the time when they received their awards. the prize game when he was at his weakest, most political and weakest after suffering a stroke. he had created a league of nations, but the united states would not join. wilson was a hero to the world, but not in the united states. the american secretary of state received the award of the
establishment of the united nations, but seoul earlier that no one could be sure how significant the united nations would be. many have been awarded the prize for the courage, even when the results were a long time seem modest. audry sakharov, lech walesa, and dalai lama, to name a few. when our received his prize, the struggle against apartheid was in its infancy. there were very few results 2.2. martin luther king jr. received his award, he proclaimed his dream, that by the decision one day we will live in a nation
where there will not be judged by the color of the skin, not by the content of the character. but there were still a long way to go from the dream, the reality. mr. president, we also happy to see through your presence here through much of dr. king's dream had come true. [applause] >> in the middle east, there have been many wars and many peace prizes have been awarded. why does the nobel committee not
wait until final peace agreements have been concluded? nothing is final in history. it always moves on. peace must be built again and again. the committee cannot afford the prices when nothing has been achieved. if the principles are important enough and the struggle over them is vital to the future of the world, the committee cannot wait until we are certain that the principles have one on all promises. that would make the price a rather belated stamp of approval, and not an instrument for peace in the world. your majesties, mr. president, your royal highnesses, ladies and gentlemen, and mr. president, in both the first and
the second world war, your great country came to your rescue. we shall never forget it. after the first world war, woodrow wilson sought to build a world built on international cooperation and democracy. his success was limited. during and after the second world war, franklin roosevelt and harry truman took initiatives to create a united nations and other global institutions. the lesson was that the power of nationstates could not be unlimited. states must commit themselves to international law and universal rights for the individuals. the world moved away from unrestrained nationstates, and towards greater internationalism.
today, yet another american president is trying to renew internationalism. he reaffirms that the united states must lead together with others. walls must be torn down. as in his speech in berlin in july 2008. the walls between all allies on either side of the atlantic cannot stand. the walls between the countries, and those with the least cannot stand. the walls between races and tribes, immigrants, christians and muslims and jews cannot stand. these now are the walls we must tear down. this must be the nobels between nations. president obama, as a political
leader, you understand that even the mightiest cannot stand alone. he is a man who believes his strengths of a community be the local community where he started his career, many years ago, or the global community which he leads today. obama has the audacity to hope and the tenacity to make these hopes come true. that is what makes him so important, by his own behavior and leadership, he is demanding that we all take a share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. would congratulate, therefore, this years laureate, president barack obama, on what he has already achieved. and wish them every possible
gratitude and great humility. it's an award that speaks to our highest aspirations. for all the cruelty and hardship of our world. we are not mere prisoners of fate. our actions matter. and can bend history in the direction of justice. and yet, i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. in part, this is because i am at the beginning and not at the end of my world stage. compared to some who received the prize, schweitzer and king ammann marshall, and mandela. my accomplishments are slight.
and then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice. those who toiled in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering. the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion, and speier even the most hardened cynics. i cannot argue with those who find these men and women, some known, some obscure to all but those that helped, to be far more deserving of this honor that i. but perhaps the most profound issues surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that i am the commander in chief of the military of the nation in the midst of two wars. one of these wars is winding down. the other is a conflict that
america did not seek. one in which we are joined by 42 other countries, including norway. in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. still, we are at war. and i'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young americans who battle in a distant land. some will kill and some will be killed. and so i come here with the acute sense of the costs of armed conflict. filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. these questions are not new. war in one form or another have appeared with the first manned. the dawn of history, its
morality was not questioned. it was simply a fact like a drought or disease, a manner in which tribes in civilizations sought power and settled their differences. overtime as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesman, seek to regulate the destructive power of war. the concept of a just war emerged. suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met. it is waged as a last resort, or in self-defense. if the force used is proportional, and if whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. the capacity of human beings to think of new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as
did our capacity to exempt for mercy for those who looked different. or pray to a different god. wars between armies gave way to armies between nations, total wars, in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. in the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. and while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the third reich and the act of power, world war ii was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished. in the wake of such destruction, with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victory and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to
prevent another world war. and so a quarter-century after the the united states senate rejected the league of nations, an idea for which woodrow wilson received this prize, i america led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace, a marshall plan and the united nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons. in many ways, these efforts succeeded. yes, terrible wars have been fought and atrocities committed. but there has been no third world war. the cold war ended with a jubilant crowds dismantling the wall. commerce has ditched much of the world together. billions have been lifted from poverty. the ideals of liberty and
self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. we are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past. and it is the legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud. and yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. the world may no longer shutter at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of capacity. terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small man with outsize rage to enter on a horrific scale.
moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. the resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the movements and insurgents and failed states. all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unmeaning chaos. in today's wars many more civilians are killed than soldiers. the seeds of future conflicts are so. economy's are wracked. civil society toward a thunder, children's garden. i do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. what i do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly
decades ago. and it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. we must begin by acknowledging a hard truth. we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations acting individually or in concert will find the use of force not only necessary, but morally justified. i make this statement mindful of what martin luther king jr. said in the same ceremony years ago. violence never brings permanent peace. it solves no social problem. it merely creates new and more complicated ones.
as someone who stand here as a direct consequence of dr. king's life's work, i am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. i know there's nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naïve, in the creed and lives of gondi and king. but as a head of state, sworn to protect and defend my nation, i cannot be guided by their examples alone. i face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the american people. for make no mistake, evil does exist in the world. a nonviolent movement could not have halted hitler's armies. negotiations could not convince al qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. to say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to
cynicism. it is a recognition of history. the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. i raise this point. i begin with this point because in many countries, there is a deep ambivalence about military action today. no matter what the cost. and at times this is joined by reflected suspicion of americans, the world is so military superpower. yet the world muster number that it was not simply international institutions, not just treaties and declarations that brought stability to a post-world war ii world. whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this. the united states of america has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens. and the strength of our arms. the service and sacrifice of our
men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from germany to korea, and enable democracy to take hold in places like the balkans. we have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will, we have done so out of enlightened self-interest. because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others, children and grandchildren, can live in freedom and prosperity. so yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. and yet, this truth must coexist with another. that no minor how justified, war promises human tragedy. the soldiers courage and sacrifices all of glory,
expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. but war itself is never glorious. and we must never trumpet it as such. so part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths. that war is sometimes necessary. and war at some level is an expression of human folly. concretely, we must direct our efforts to the task that president kennedy called for long ago. let us focus, he said, on a more practical, more attainable peace. based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a
gradual evolution in human institutions. a gradual evolution of human institutions. what might this evolution look like? what might these practical steps be? to begin with, i believe that all nations, strong and weak alike, must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. eyes like any head of state reserve the right to act unilaterally, if necessary, to defend my nation. nevertheless, i am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do. and isolates and weakens those who don't. the world rallied around america after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in afghanistan because of the
whore of those senseless attacks, and the recognized principle of self-defense. likewise, the world recognized the need to confront saddam hussein when he made it a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression. furthermore, america, in fact no nation can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow than ourselves. for when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary. and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention, no matter how justified. and this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense, or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own
government, or to stop a civil war whose violence is suffering can ingold an entire region. i believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the balkans. or in other places that have been scarred by war. in action, it tears at our conscious and can lead to more costly later. . .
>> the leaders and soldiers of nato countries and other friends and allies demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in afghanistan. but in many countries there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. i understand why war is not popular, but i also know this, the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. peace requires responsibility, peace entails sacrifice. that's why nato continue cans to be indispensable. that's why we must be strengthen u.n. and regional peace keeping and not leave the task to a few
countries. that's why we honor those who return home from peace keeping and training abroad to oslo and rome, ottawa and sydney. we honor them not as makers of war, but as of -- but as wagers of peace. let me make one final point about the use of force. even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. the nobel committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to the founder of the red cross and a driving force behind the geneva conventions. where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct can. and even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by
no rules, i believe the united states of america must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. that is what makes us different from those whom we fight. that is a source of our strength. that is thigh i prohibited torture -- why i prohibited torture, that is why i ordered the prison at guantanamo bay closed, and that is why i have reaffirmed america's commitment to abide by the geneva conventions. we lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. [applause] and we honor, we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
i have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. but let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices. and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace. first, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, i believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior. for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. sanctions must exact a real price. intransigence must be met with
increased pressure, and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one. one urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to seek a world without them. in the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear, all will have access to peaceful nuclear power, those without nuclear weapons will forsake them and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. i am committed to upholding this treaty. it is a center piece of my foreign policy, and i'm working with president medvedev to reduce america and russia's nuclear stockpiles. but it's also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations, like iran and north korea, do not gain the system. those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are
flouted. those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the middle east or east asia. those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war. the same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. when there is genocide in darfur, systematic rape in congo, repression in burma, there must be consequences. yes, there will be engagement, yes, there will be diplomacy, but there must be consequences. when those things fail. and the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with a choice between armed intervention and complicity the and oppression.
this brings me to a second point. the nature of the peace that we seek. for peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict, only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting. it was this insight that drove drafters of the universal declaration of human rights after the second world war. in the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise. and yet too often these words rig mothered. ignored. for some countries the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the fact that these are somehow western cultures or
stages of a nation's development. and within america there's long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists, a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world. i reject these choices. i believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. we also know that the opposite is true. only when europe became free did it finally find peace. america has never fought a war against a democracy.
and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. no matter how callously defined, neither america's interests, nor the world's are served by the denial of human aspirations. so even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, america will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. we will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers, to the prey ri -- bravery of zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings, to the hundreds of thousands who are marched silently through the streets of iran. it is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. and it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations
to make clear that these movements, these movements of hope and history, they have us on their side. let me also say this, the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. at times it must be coupled with pain staking diplomacy. i know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation, but i also know that sanctions without outreach, condemnation without discussion can carry forward only a crippling status quo. no repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door. in light of the cultural
revolution's horrors, nixon's meeting with mao appeared inexcusable, and yet it surely helped set china on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. pope john paul's engagement with poland created space not just for the catholic church, but for labor leaders. ronald reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the soviet union, but empowered dissidents throughout eastern europe. there's no simple formula here, but we must try as best as we can to balance isolation and so that human rights are advanced over time. third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights,
it must encompass economic security and opportunity. for true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want. it is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security, it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food or clean water for the medicine -- or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. it does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. the absence of hope can rot a society from within. and that's why helping farmers feed their own people or nations educate their children and care for the sick is not mere charity, it's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. there's little scientific dispute that if we do nothing,
we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement, all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. for this reason it's not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action, it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance. agreements among nations, strong institutions, support for human rights, investments in development, all these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that president kennedy spoke about. and yet i do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power to complete this work without something more.
and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination. an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share. as the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things. that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families. and yet somehow given the dizzying pace of globalization both cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities, their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully, their religion. in some places this fear has led
to conflict. at times it even feels like we're moving backwards. we see it in the middle east as the conflict between arabs and jews seems to harden, we see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. and most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of islam. and who attacked my country from afghanistan. these extremists are not the first to kill in the name of god. the cruelties of the crusades are amply recorded. but they remind us that no holy war can ever be a just war. for if you truly believe that you are carrying out define will, then there is no need for restraint. no need to spare the pregnant
mother or the medic or the red cross worker or even a person of one own's faith. such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but i believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith. for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. for we are fallible. we make mistakes and fall victim to the temptations of pride and power and sometimes evil. even those of us with the best of intentions will, at times, fail to right the wrongs before
us. but we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. we do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. the nonviolence practiced by men like gandhi and king may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached, that fundamental faith in human progress, that must always be the north star that guides us on our journey. for if we lose that faith, if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the divisions that we make on issues of war and peace, then we lose what's best about humanity. we lose our sense of
possibility. we lose our moral compass. like generations have before us, we must reject that future. as dr. king said at this occasion can so many years ago, i refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. i refuse to accept the idea that the isness of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal oughtness that forever confronts him. let us reach for the world that ought to be, that spark of the divine that still steers within each of our souls. [applause]
>> somewhere today in the here and now, in the world as it is a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. somewhere today in this world a young protester awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. somewhere today a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams. let us live by their example. we can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us and still strive for justice.
we can anytime the intract about of depravation and still strive. clear-eyed we can understand there will be war and still strive for peace. we can do that, for that is the story of human progress, that's the hope of all the world, and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on earth. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]
>> and just a reminder that you can see the nobel peace prize ceremony again in its entirety tomorrow night, friday night, 8 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> on the senate floor lawmakers gavel in at 10 a.m. eastern for another day of debate on health care. off the floor on tuesday, a group of liberal and moderate democrats agreed on a new plan to replace the government-run insurance program in the bill called the public option. harry reid said yesterday the chamber may also begin consideration of the conference record on a $447 billion omnibus spending bill that includes
spending for commerce, financial services, labor, education, mill care construction, veterans 'affairs, state foreign operations, transportation and housing. live coverage of the senate this morning on c-span2. in the house today they come in, they will also likely take up that omnibus spending bill as well as continue debate on amendments to financial regulations legislation. the u.s. house coming in at 10 a.m. eastern, and you can follow coverage on c-span. again, the u.s. senate coming in at 8:30 eastern. until then, we're going to bring you a panel looking at how technology effects consumer privacy. analysts discuss the benefits as well as the risks associated with information sharing. it's from the federal trade commission. [inaudible conversations]
>> all right. good morning, everyone. i know that it's going to be a little bit difficult because we are in cramped quarters today. thank you all so very much for your patience going through our security line. i know that you all appreciate the importance of security. i will actually make a formal announcement about it in plant, but, please, understand that we are delighted you could be here with us today and that you have withstood the test of the long line. my name is katie harrington-mcbride, i'm a member of the privacy round tables team, and i'm very pleased to welcome you here this morning for the first of our three round table discussions in the exploring privacy series. i have some logistics and
housekeeping announcements, so the good news is that your fellows that you may have left behind in the line who are still being processed will not be missing anything substantive just now. we have food and beverages coming. we understand that the security line will pose some obstacles to you, so we are arranging to have that stuff delivered and, hopefully, before the first break there will be opportunities for you to get snacks and beverages just outside in the hallway. we also have a list of other eateries if you're brave enough to want to get yourself outside and get a breath of air. feel free to do that, and you can pick up that list at the table where you checked in. the restrooms are back out through the lobby. you do not need to go through security, but go back through the hallway that you may have been standing in, take a left, and the men's and women's rooms are right there. when we begin, we're going to have panel discussions. as you can see, we have our panelists arrayed here. we'd like to involve you in the
discussion as much as possible though. but because of the crowd, we're going to need to do this in an organized fashion, so we have question cards that are available. if you have not received one and are interested in getting one, you can raise your hand, and one of our paralegals will bring you a card. we will collect it, we will bring it to the moderator of the panel, and with a strong tailwind, we'll finish in time so there is some q&a time. people who are watching on the webcast should feel free to e-mail to the address privacy round table at ftc.gov. we'll also be checking that account and bringing those questions to moderators. for our security announcement, anyone that goes outside of the ftc without a badge will be required to return through security. you will have to go through the x-ray machine. if you spot any suspicious activity, please, report it to the security staff or to one of the members of the private round table eat team.
table's team. in the event of a fire or evacuation of the building, please leave in an orderly fashion. we will proceed across the street, across new jersey avenue, to the georgetown law school, to the right-hand side of that building. and at that time, if we have been evacuated f you could check in with staff, we would very much appreciate that. if there are ftc staff in the room, i hope that you will be kind enough to give up your seat so that our guests may take your seat and you may return to your desk and watch on ftc live. [laughter] just good manners. these are company manners, folks. this is obviously an extremely well-attended event, so, again, if ftc staff wouldn't mind volunteering their seats, if you could, please, do that. we're also investigating the possibility of overflow seating, and we will let you know at the first break how that's working
out. but thank you to those of you who are willing to stand at this point. we're going to do our best to make sure everybody can be comfortably seated for the duration. with that, i would like to introduce the associate directer of the division of privacy and identity protection,. [applause] >> thanks, katie, and thanks, all of you, for coming. it's a pleasure to see so many of you in the audience. it's great to see some familiar faces and also great to see some new faces. i think regardless of whether you're a repeat player or this is your first ftc event, i think we're fortunate enough that we've assembled some of the best and brightest minds on privacy issues here today. so we're sure to have a discussion that's filled with creative thinking, energy and enthusiasm. and speaking of those attributes, i think our first speaker embodies them. he's a creative thinker, he's got a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and he's the chairman of the ftc, chairman jon leibowitz.
chairman leibowitz is no stranger to privacy issues. since he started at the ftc in 2004, he's spoken on a host of issues including spam and spyware, pretexting, and i actually remember the first conversation i had with him, we were talking about the privacy implications of public databases, and we had a really spirited discussion. so with that, let me introduce chairman jon leibowitz. [applause] >> thank you so much for that kind and entirely undeserved introduction. and as i, as i look around the room, i see so many privacy luminaries here and people who have really worked on these issues, lee peeler, susan grant, marc rotenberg, jeff chester was around here, dave morgan. and so really i think this is going to be sort of a terrific workshop. we're going to learn an enormous
amount, and you're going to help us do that as we try to think through these complex issues. now, i recently spoke about, i was on a panel about louis brandeis, one of the intellectual fathers of the federal trade commission, of course, who was also a turn of the last century reformer, supreme court justice, and in 1890 brandeis and his partner, samuel warren, authored a seminal law review article on privacy. and they wrote, i quote -- and i'm quoting, quote, numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed on the housetops. and what they were concerned about then was photography. photography in newspapers and sort of peeping toms. now, their work was enormously influential and prophetic in some ways, and it helped to
shape american jurisprudence on privacy over the course of the 20th century, and, of course, brandeis' thinking continued when he was on the supreme court particularly, i think, in ohm stead where he wrote that the right to be let alone was, i think, most -- and jeff rosen will correct me if i'm wrong, it was the right most valued by sievized men. civilized men. in the 1960s as americans started to lose faith in government and the 1970s with the abuses of government surveillance powers, together with the add vens of the computer -- advent of the computer age created more concern cans with government. and the private act and the fair information practice principles, the fipps. i like saying it, the fipps,
grew out of that environment. i'd argue that we're at another water shed moment in privacy and that the time is right for the commission to build on the february behavioral marketing and behavioral targeting principles to take a broader look at privacy or look at privacy writ large, and let me explain why. one of my advisers is about to buy a home computer with a quad core chip running at 2.66 gigahertz. a slower super computer cost about $10 million in the '90s. these advances have created extraordinary benefits for consumers but also have tremendous implications for privacy. the computer cost of data collection seems to be approaching zero. data storage costs are unbelievably low too, the efficiency compliments unbelievable advances in chip technology.
so companies can store and crunch massive amounts of data relatively cheaply. now, these developments have allowed companies to collect and use data about consumers in ways that were never feasible or even conceivable before. behavioral targeting is one of the many ways companies can use data to try to tease out which consumers or ip addresses are more likely to respond to a particular ad. those who attended last week's workshop on the future of journalism know that a number of speakers spoke about the importance of revenue from targeted, from targeting and funding journalism. there are both benefits to companies and to consumers from targeting such as more relevant advertising, but also -- i think as we all know -- costs in terms of privacy. now, those words still reverberate today, these
technologies have fundamentally changed the privacy landscape in a way in which justice brandeis would have been completely unfamiliar. consumers have to grapple with this brave new world of information and without a real understanding of the ways in which their information is handled or transferred. take internet advertising, for example. how many consumers or at least ones outside this room -- i know it's early in the morning, but that was a joke. [laughter] have ever heard the names of the many ad networks that end up with their information in the process of targeting ads? how many people understand the network's role and other intermediaries' role in the internet ecosystem? how many people understand what a cookie is, much less how to distinguish a first-party cookie from a third-party cookie? if brick and mortar retailers tracked a consumer's meanderings
around the mall the same way online, it's not just consumers who are grappling with privacy, companies are as well. in the commission's case consumers, in a sense, opted in. they were paid $10 for participating to a stunning degree of tracking of their web usage. the gist of our case was that while the extent of tracking was describeed, that disclosure wasn't sufficiently clear or prominent given the extent of the information tracked which included online banking statement, drug prescription records, library borrowing histories, and the sender/recipient's subject and size for web-based e-mails. so consumers doesn't consent with an adequate understanding of the deal they were making. now, nobody argues that the folks at sears are bad people,
and i think actually to the contrary, they probably didn't know exactly what they expected to learn from this data. and that just demonstrates, however, that all of us, all of us are still feeling our way around what respecting privacy really means. now, people have asked me what to expect be to get from this workshop and where we're headed. i can honestly say we don't yet know. our minds are open. we do feel that the approaches we've tried so far, both the notice and choice approach and later the harm-based approach or regime, haven't worked quite as well as we would like, but it could be that this issue is a lot like churchill's description of democracy, and he said, i think, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried. still, we are going to try to look through the issue of privacy and especially online privacy to try to think it
through in a way that is better for consumers, fairer to businesses as well. we all agree that consumers don't read privacy policies, and i think most people now acknowledge that you can focus on traditional pii such as name and address when particular devices and even consumers are so readily identifiable without it. and, of course, commission staff's thoughtful behavioral advertising principles viewed information in this broader, more holistic way. well, is there a better way to protect privacy? is there an easier way? is there a framework that conforms to consumers' reasonable expectations that businesses can understand and apply? if not a unified theory of privacy, are there steps to narrow the areas of confusion and empower consumers? should we utilize more opt-in, and i've been a supporter for quite some time, should we treat
special categories of information such as personal health records or personal financial information differently? and how do we treat vulnerable categories of consumers such as children? we hope that we'll find out over the course of the next six months, and the experts who have graciously agreed to participate in today's discussions will start us off on the course of answering some of these questions. and i see my distinguished -- i guess not former colleague, but predecessor here, so we're delight, former ftc committer thompson. -- commissioner thompson. let me thank at least a few of the many people who have worked so hard to make today's round table possible. now, i won't list everyone, but let me acknowledge some of the key staff members. loretta garrison. if you guys could stand up -- unless you're already sanding up in the back of the room, then raise your hand. if you could stand up or raise
your hand when i mention your name. loretta garrison. pedro mcgee. you're right in front of me, good. [laughter] katie harrington-mcbride who started us off, michelle rosenthal, jessica and randy fixman as well as assistant directer chris olson who's around here somewhere, back in the corner over there. associate directer who are introduced me. where are you? you're in the front, that's great. of course, jessica rich, david vladic who is the architect of so many things in the bureau of consumer protection be. we're delighted you came over from georgetown to be part of the commission. and also jeffrey rosen who is standing over there in the corner and who is helping us think through these issues with a slightly different, but incredible informative perspective, so we're delighted that you're part of the group
that's digging through privacy, particularly privacy online. i want to thank you all, really, for assembling such a stellar cast and an accomplished group of thinkers on these issues. and with that, let's get the ball rolling. are we going to reveal the ecosystem charts today? this morning? >> yes. >> oh, that's going to be very exciting. so we have a number of exciting announcements and a number of terrific speakers, and thank you so much. [applause] >> thanks, chairman leibowitz. i'd now like to call to the podium mr. richard smith who will describe some of the data flow charts that are in your packet as well as the personal data ecosystem that's on be the wall to my right. and while mr. smith is coming up, could i also invite all the people on panel one to take their seats so that we can be ready to go as soon as mr. smith finishes his presentation? thanks.
[inaudible conversations] >> first of all, i want to thank the ftc for the opportunity to speak here today. my role is to sort of set the stage for the workshop and to talk about some of the technologies behind data collection and data use. as we all realize, the flow of data is, makes our world work. it's a fundamental part of the economy and just everything that we do every day. a simple economic transaction such as making a cell phone call
or buying something online all involve the collection of data and the use of data by multiple vendors, you know, simply to make a cell phone call might involve five different companies, typically, to -- that collect data as part of making, completing that phone call. and what i hope to do in the introduction here is to go, look behind the scenes a little bit at some of the technology that makes all this happen and some of the business relationships that make this happen. the issue of data collection has been around forever, probably the first time somebody made a stone tablet, we had data collection. but today the issue, as the chairman said in his introduction and it was very interesting to hear about this issue, you know, starting up with brandeis, it's technology-driven. we're seeing a lot more interesting uses of data and a lot more collection of data, an education motion of collection of data due to technology. and i think many folks in the
room can realize this by thinking back only about 15 years to the first time that they owned a cell phone or used a web browser or had a credit card swiped with the magnetic swipe as opposed to, say, the embosser machine. so those systems are all indications of the underlying technologies that are driving this, this data collection ecosystem. one illustration of technology that i wanted to point out here, i have a hard drive. this is actually kind of ancient technology, it was made in 2003, but if you went to your local best buys or staples, you could buy today a one gigabyte hard drive for around $150, and this is anybody could buy this. and these are used in personal computers, particularly in desktop computers, but more importantly, in computer servers that hold information about what we're talking about here today, the data that's collected as
part of transactions. well, what is one terrabyte of data that you could buy today? that's equivalent to 300 million sheets of printed-out paper. that's one piece of paper for every citizen of the united states that can be held on one hard drive. now, we make hundreds of millions of these drives per year, and as the chairman has pointed out, it is basically now free, practically free to store data. it actually costs more now to delete the data off these drives than it is to ciept. and the ore -- keep it. and the other point is we have to fill all these drives up, and we are as part of this the ecosystem, the data collection ecosystem. the other part of the technology advance that we're all very aware of is communications technology. and it's really, there's two very important places that's happening. one is, of course, the internet which allows us to connect all
the computers and all these hard drives together to collect data. and we've watched, you know, in the last 15 years from the internet being something that was in universities to something that we all use. and we no longer -- we used to connect up to the internet through modems, and now we do it through cable, you know, cable ekgs and dsl connections or wireless connections. and that's the other important communications network that we have is the the wireless phone network which allows us, now, to collect data at really any location. we're now going to take a look at the, our chart here of -- we call it the personal data ecosystem which is an attempt to look sort of behind the curtain at a very high level of how data's collected in our world. and the purpose of the chart is to show from the consumer
perspective, you know, what they see as data collection and then things that are happening, also, behind the curtain. and in this -- one thing that i wanted to say about it is, it's obviously b very simple compared to what's happening out in the real world. there's literally tens of thousands of vendors who are part of this ecosystem and hundreds of millions of consumers, so it has to be much more complicated than this diagram, and it doesn't -- it's a high-level chart, and it doesn't get down to some of the nuances and complexities that actually go on in the real world. but in the, in the ecosystem we have at the center here the consumer which is the data supplier. and they provide the information to, you know, as part of their, as they go about their daily lives to a variety of we call data collectors here, and they can be all sorts of organizations, you know? they can be businesses that we interact with every day, they
can be in the area of medical, they can be our doctors or our pharmacies. we get into government collects data, and a whole variety of folks who as part of our daily lives we provide information to. it can be direct, say, through an application for a credit card, or it could be indirect through, say, making a cell phone call. this information then is used to provide services to us. we then move out one level to an area that's a a lot of consumers are really not familiar with to the data broker level where we have folks who collect data from a variety of businesses and government sources, put it together, aggregate it for the purpose of selling it. and this is an area that a lot of consumers are only vaguely aware of. and then we go out to the outer circle to the, of the chart here, and we see all the different, we see some of the different users of this data who
buy the aggregate data. you know, one example is marketers or banks or so on who use all the different informations collected through the data broker services. then coming back to the consumer, there's a variety of services that happen from the data users and through this aggregation of data, and it can be the extension of credit, it can be advertising, it could be a whole host of things that the data users then bring back to the consumer. and in some cases the consumer is aware of these services, in other cases they're not particularly aware of. and the one, the one thing that's important here is that we have, you know, both a primary user of data and secondary uses of the data. you know, for example, if i buy a house and pay property taxes, a lot of people don't realize
that information about my house is then used to characterize me for marketing places, it's a secondary use. what we're going to look at, also, then today is some specific examples of the use of data in everyday transactions here. this is one that's personally applicable to me. over the last three or four years i've had, like a lot of folks, had to start taking pills. so one of the things i have to do is get my prescriptions filled at the local pharmacy. and here we have a, part of this data ecosystem how information is used to perform that service, some of which are very, i'm very aware of, but other ones i'm less aware of. but the basic economic transaction begins with the doctor providing me with a prescription. i then take it to my pharmacy where information is entered into a computer about myself as
well as about my prescriptions. now, one thing that's important is if you get pills on a regular basis, you get one prescription that renews for up to, say, a year. and it's up to the pharmacy and their computer systems to keep track of those refills. and so one of the benefits then i get as a consumer is i don't have to go back to the doctor for every, every prescription. so when the pharmacy fills a prescription, they enter the data into the, into their computer systems, and one thing they do, a new service that the pharmacy is providing now is they will call me on the phone when it's time for me to refill a prescription. it's one use of data. now, that's a marketing program as far as the pharmacy goes, but from my perspective that's convenience. now, there's other places that data flow to out of the pharmacy. one is, you know, paying for my pills through insurance, the health insurance company's going to learn about it, but there's
also a whole other activity where various prescriptions go to a pharmaceutical analytics company that analyzes all the different prescriptions that people are buying for various, for a variety of purposes. one can be disease tracking. another one can be for information for media. another area that's been relatively controversial is in the area of marketing to doctors. these aggregate statistics that are generated by analytics, some of these statistics are done specific to the doctor. and the information is then sold to pharmaceutical companies and also used by pharmacies to market back to doctors. and this has been an area that's been controversial, some legislation's been done against. but the idea is that the pharmaceutical companies, you know, base their marketing to a specific doctor based on all the different prescriptions they've been developing.